Defining a "GREAT" horse

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I've always distinguished between Hall Of Fame horses and "great" horses.

I think the Hall Of Fame should have broader inclusion ... basically a place for truly distinguished horses. For example, Cougar II was just inducted ... and I approve of that ... he was hardly "great" .. but he was a top quality race horse over several seasons ... including in South America ... and deserves the designation and honor.

"Great" ... to me at least ... is a more hallowed term ... to be reserved for the special few ... maybe the 30 best colts and the 20 best fillies in an entire century.

P.S. You'll have to chuck your weight-carrying requirement ... or we'll never have another "great" horse.

And I see it the other way around. I see many more as great but that the Hall should take a more restrictive approach. As much as I love Java Gold and King Glorious and think both were great horses, I wouldn't dare put them in the Hall.

For the weight thing, I know we'll never see the weights of days gone by again but when I say top weights, I just mean the top weights of their day. If that means carrying 123 while the others are carrying 117, then that will have to suffice.

Originally Posted by King Glorious

And I see it the other way around. I see many more as great but that the Hall should take a more restrictive approach. As much as I love Java Gold and King Glorious and think both were great horses, I wouldn't dare put them in the Hall.

Both were tremendous talents ... but ...

... your namesake King Glorious just didn't race enough ... only 2 G1's.

Java Gold had better credentials ... with 4 G1's and two G1 placings ... marginal Hall Of Fame material ... but I'd just say No.

What a shame Java Gold wasn't a good stallion ... the St. Simon/Ribot line really could have used a good boost.